Local Blogs

About this blog: In January 2002 I started writing my own online "newspaper" titled "The San Ramon Observer." I reported on City Council meetings and other happenings in San Ramon. I tried to be objective in my coverage of meetings and events, and... (More)

About this blog: In January 2002 I started writing my own online "newspaper" titled "The San Ramon Observer." I reported on City Council meetings and other happenings in San Ramon. I tried to be objective in my coverage of meetings and events, and saved my barbs for my Commentary page. I had some political differences with the City Council at that time and particularly with the majority dubbed "The Gang of Three," by the San Ramon Valley Times. In 2003 new Council members were elected and the Council was more balanced and fiscally conservative, but I continued to write the Observer until 2009. At that point I decided I wanted to concentrate on my commentaries. So I requested a meeting with the editor and publisher of the Danville Weekly about taking over the San Ramon Observer. My timing was very apropos since the parent company, Embarcadero Media, was planning to release an online San Ramon Express that April. I was offered a "blog" under the name "San Ramon Observer" for my commentaries. I like to inform residents about what is happening in San Ramon, especially on city government and local politics. When I don't have anything to write about on those topics, I just write about anything I am doing or thinking about. (Hide)

Is the public ready for some change?

Uploaded: Aug 18, 2011

Phil O'Loane is running for City Council to bring an independent voice to the Council. We met at Peet's on Crow Canyon Road on Tuesday evening when there was still a remote possibility that someone else could file for City Council.

I asked Phil about his connection to the No on Measure W campaign and whether he considered running as a slate with other slow-growth advocates. "I'm running as Phil O'Loane," he said, "I'm an independent thinker. There's no slate I'm part of, nor does there need to be. I think the public is ready for some change." He's for balanced growth, supports the police and believes "a solid financial base is important."

Phil is concerned about the City's finances, which he says are not as rosy as presented by the City Council. The City ran a deficit in the last fiscal year, and O'Loane wants to close that gap. I asked if this wouldn't reduce some City services, and Phil said, "You have to look at all potential alternatives. There hasn't been another voice asking about them."

I asked Phil about the tax revenue the City is losing from Norris Canyon Estates. With the defeat of Measure W, the expansion of the Western UGB was killed too. Phil said Norris Canyon Estates was approved a week before the County UGB went into effect; otherwise it would not have been built. He said, "There are other risks with expanding the Western UGB greater than the incremental tax revenues."

His position now seems to be in contradiction to his earlier support of moving the Western UGB. O'Loane and representatives from several environmental groups said they wouldn't oppose anything else in the General Plan, including moving the Western UGB, if moving the Eastern UGB into Tassajara Valley was put into a separate measure. This would have been a sensible thing to do and I was leaning in favor of taking Tassajara Valley out of the General Plan too, but the City Council kept everything bundled in Measure W.

The North Camino Ramon Specific Plan (NCRSP) was another element of the General Plan that was unopposed until the No on Measure W campaign started using it as a scare tactic against Measure W. I asked Phil why he went along with Seth Adam's claim about multiple "Transamerica Towers," in the NCRSP? Phil was on the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC) at the time the plan was developed. Phil said Adams was simply equating the additional square footage in the NCRSP with the Transamerica Tower and not implying there would be skyscrapers there.

Phil said when the NCRSP was developed in 2005-06, he made an upward gesture with his hand to indicate the growth in the economy. When the General Plan was being developed in 2009-10, he made a downward gesture to indicate the economic decline.

One of the reasons for the NCRSP was to provide infill housing to meet ABAG's housing requirements. O'Loane told me ABAG dropped its housing numbers for Northern California this year from 900,000 to 600,000. O'Loane feels the City has been moving too quickly to meet the older ABAG housing numbers. "If there's not a strong reason to do something, let it play out a little longer," he said about the housing numbers planned for during a downtown.

"My issue with the NCRSP is why not wait and get more information before changing the zoning?" He pointed out that "There's been three or four Specific Plans so far and not a shovel of dirt has been turned yet."

Actually that was one of my arguments in favor of the NCRSP when O'Loane's supporter, Kevin L'Hommedieu, complained that small businesses such as his would be driven out of that part of the City if Measure W passed. There had been no opposition to the NCRSP before Mr. L'Hommedieu complained about it. L'Hommedieu is providing space in his auto repair shop for Mr. O'Loane's campaign headquarters.

I spoke to Debbie Chamberlain, Planning Manager, to ask about the zoning change for NCRSP. She said that there's a difference between a Land Use Designation, which is what is in the General Plan, and a zoning change. Zoning is more detailed in setting building height, setbacks, and other specifications on buildings. Land use in the General Plan simply identifies the zoning the land owner can apply for. Until the property owner plans to change it, everything already there is grandfathered in.

I asked Chamberlain what effect ABAG's reduction in housing would have on San Ramon's housing numbers. She said these changes are part of ABAG's Sustainable Community Strategies . "I have no idea what the numbers are going to be. ABAG's Housing Methodology Committee meets in September, until then I wouldn't even try to guess," she said.

O'Loane ran for City Council in 2001, but dropped out after the sale of his business fell through. Now he works full time for Kaiser Permanente, where he travels around Northern California.

I asked how this would impact his ability to serve on the City Council. He pointed out there are "a lot of modern ways of getting information that's more efficient. The Council sets policy. Staff carries it out. You don't have to be there all the time. It's better if you're not and let them do the job."

That last comment might be a left-handed reference to Abram Wilson, one of Phil's opponents in the City Council race. Abram proudly boasts of being at City Hall "24/7," which some observers have said is overstaying his welcome. I plan to ask Wilson about that in my interview with him for my Monday San Ramon Observer blog.

While Phil opposed the current City Council on Measure W, he's a known quantity to Councilmembers and Staff. He's paid his dues by serving on the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC) for four years, and the Planning Commission for another four years. He describes himself as an "Independent thinker who understands how the city functions."

Phil was not reappointed to the Planning Commission last year, which he and some of his supporters believe was "punishment" for not supporting Measure W. That may have influenced how some Councilmembers voted, but the decision wasn't 100%. Carol Rowley and Dave Hudson voted to reappoint Phil, and his replacement, Jeanne Benedetti, has excellent qualifications to be on the Commission. The decision wasn't as lopsided as the No on Measure W campaign portrayed it.

Phil signed the pledge to keep spending under the voluntary $42,368 limit. To keep his campaign spending down, Phil is planning a grass-roots effort by handing out fliers and spreading the word.

Posted by Dave Hudson,
a resident of San Ramon,
on Aug 19, 2011 at 10:37 am

Some clarification is needed here:
1. The urban growth boundary was in place when the county approved Norris Canyon Estates and/or the county simply would have voted to extend it (no measure J or measure L requiring your vote in 1990's).
2. There is no increase in square footage to the NCRSP. It is an update from 1970's planning to incorporate SB 375/AB 32 planning.
3. The 2030 General Plan is an update of the 20 year general plan designed and voted for by residents in 2002 as required by law.
4. The housing numbers were not decreased from 900,000 to 600,000 in Northern California, they were increased from 600,000 to 900,000 in the 9 county bay area. The downtown housing numbers (NCRSP) are at least 3000 units less than what ABAG wants.
5. Debbie Chamberlain is correct. The methodology committee (Julie Pierce for Contra Costa) will make their recommendations in September and the Sustainable Community Strategy will stay on track for the April 2013 required date as described in SB375.

Last November the general plan was put before the voters suggesting a 20,000 population increase. Yes, in 2002 the voters accepted a population number of 96,000 people and the current 2030 plan is 92,000 or 4,000 less. In the 8 years after the 2002 vote we have seen a population increase from 45,000 to 72,000! If Councilman Hudsen has not realized the sentiment toward growth of another 20,000 or does not think that part of the 72% of voters were voting down this growth last November, he is severely out of touch with his constituents.

The square footage that is acquiring a new land use designation reflects all of the land between the freeway and Alcosta, Costco to and including the Toyota building. This will effectively eliminate any other land use designation in ALL of San Ramon to mixed use/residential. No office, no service commercial, no industrial/warehouse. Yes a land owner can maintain his existing use but it limits who he may sell it to and encourages developers to buy out and create massive development. The City already has their plan which includes "Big Box" retail next to Luckys, 1500 hundred houses & and an office campus where the Post Office is.

Let's quit playing with numbers and just be honest with residents of San Ramon of what the City has planned for our future.

Good objective article on Phil O'Loane. Yes, I do support him for the next City Council because HE listens.

Posted by Renae Wilber,
a resident of San Ramon,
on Sep 1, 2011 at 12:09 am

Kevin,

I believe you have hit the nail on the head with your statement:

"Let's quit playing with numbers and just be honest with residents of San Ramon of what the City has planned for our future."

Those numbers are great for the few that understand their implications, but for the rest of us....just listen to your community, give us the truth in a language we can understand, and when you say it, mean it. Phil O'Loane certainly has my vote. ~Renae~

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online.
Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information
and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name:*

Select your neighborhood or school community:*

Comment:*

Verification code:* Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.